Be ye separate, saith the Lord

[MyCrows]

To what degree are we called to separation, in 2 Corinthians 6:17, Revelation 18:4, as well as a host of other passages in scripture?

Is this a separation only from the world by and large, as it does not profess faith in Christ? To what extent are we to separate from the unbelieving world?

What about when we find ourselves in local church bodies, or denominations, that have accrued serious errors?

Do we reform from within, or without?

I was going to weigh in on a few issues raised in this thread in relation to separatism, but it might be better if a new thread were started on this subject as it has derailed the discussion from the original point of the OP.

@davejonescue Apologies for derailing your thread so thoroughly.

As for other folks, happy to chat about this in another post.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

1. I don't keep close friendships with the world.
2. I don't keep friendships with professing Christians living in unrepentant sin.
3. I don't keep Christian fellowship with those who are unorthodox in the foundational pieces of Christianity.

Other than that, I enjoy acquaintances, friendships, and fellowship with many people to various degrees. A lot of it just comes down to practical wisdom.

 

[Polanus1561]

There is always someone more separate from the world than you.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

There is always someone more separate from the world than you.

Amen. There is also always someone more holy than me. But that is never a reason to not pursue holiness. I’m not saying you’re saying that but as I think back over the years I do recall that I’ve encountered some who were saying that for sure!

@MyCrows - I plan to offer a very thorough response to your question as time permits. I'm breaking the books open for this one.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

"As certainly as Christ separates the sheep from the goats (Matthew 25:32-33 KJV), so there is divide between truth and error. Separation involves discerning that line and taking a stand on the right side of that line. In order to echo Moses' call, 'Who is on the Lord's side?' (Exodus 32:26 KJV), Christians need to know what the sides are and which of the sides is the Lord's. These questions can be answered only through searching the Scripture. The issues involved in biblical separation are not minor ones. Just before God brought judgment on Korah and his rebellious followers, Moses said to the children of Israel, 'Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest ye be consumed in all their sins' (Numbers 16:26 KJV). Fundamentalists view the dividing line of scriptural separation with that same seriousness." - Dr. Mark Sidwell, Set Apart: The Nature and Importance of Biblical Separation, emphasis mine.

It ought to be said from the outset that I am an unashamed and unapologetic fundamentalist. Why?

1. I intend to meet this charge head on, should it be made.
2. I'm probably one of the few fundamentalists on PuritanBoard.
3. It's going to color my responses to this question and subsequent discussion.

However, I didn't begin as a fundamentalist. I didn't decide that I was a fundamentalist and then go buy the uniform, as it were. On the contrary, I, like many of you, sincerely believe that I followed the Holy Scripture wherever it led, and am what I am as a result of that journey. This is where I landed. Here I stand.

There are some very good and helpful books and articles on this topic that I'd like to link to here in case my responses are inadequate. I hope that they will be a help and a blessing to you and others.

Books:

Stand for the Truth by Dr. Peter Masters
When to Stand Apart by Dr. Peter Masters
Be Ye Holy: The Call to Christian Separation by Dr. Fred Moritz
Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church by Dr. Ernest D. Pickering
The Tragedy of Compromise: The Origin and Impact of the New Evangelicalism by Dr. Ernest D. Pickering

Articles from the Metropolitan Tabernacle:

The Doctrine of Biblical Separation | Dr Peter Masters

A brief article published in the Sword & Trowel early in 1971, soon after the Metropolitan Tabernacle had seceded once again from the BU.

metropolitantabernacle.org

Secondary Separation | Dr Peter Masters

When to Stand Apart from Biblical Error. Here is a Gospel-preserving and church-protecting duty designed for our blessing.

metropolitantabernacle.org

Paul's Blueprint For A Separated Church | Dr Peter Masters

Satan's strategy is infiltration and compromise. So why do we not separate from error? Here is Paul's blueprint for a separated church.

metropolitantabernacle.org

The Pilgrim Concept | Article by Dr Peter Masters

This concept is vital to the Christian. The very word ‘pilgrim’ reminds us of our duty to be holy and separate from the world for Christ.

metropolitantabernacle.org

Keeping the Church Separate from the World | The salt of the earth

by John Gresham Machen. If the sharp distinction is broken down between the church and the world, then the power of the church is gone.

metropolitantabernacle.org

Abandoning Separation from Biblical Error | R E Palgrave

In 2004 the BEC changed its name to Affinity and appointed a director, who terminated the policy of biblical separation.

metropolitantabernacle.org

There are also a great many sermons on this topic, many of which are available on SermonAudio:

Search: Separation | SermonAudio

www.sermonaudio.com

With that being said, I've grouped some of your questions in a different order in order to try to make sure I address them all concisely.

To what degree are we called to separation, in 2 Corinthians 6:17, Revelation 18:4, as well as a host of other passages in scripture?

To what extent are we to separate from the unbelieving world?

To the greatest degree possible for someone who is called to be in, but not of the world, (John 17:15-26 KJV, 1 Corinthians 5:10 KJV) in keeping with discretion and charity (1 Corinthians 16:13-14 KJV).

Is this a separation only from the world by and large, as it does not profess faith in Christ?

We are commanded to separate from at least six different types of professing believers. Quoting Dr. Fred Moritz in Be Ye Holy:

1. The sinning brother—Sin by one brother against another about which the sinning brother will not be reconciled (Matt. 18:15–17).

2. The immoral brother—Moral sins that the sinning brother continues to practice. These are fornication, covetousness, railing, drunkenness, and extortion (1 Cor. 5:11).

3. The unequally yoked brother—The doctrinal, or theological, error of idolatry, or being unequally yoked with unbelievers (1 Cor. 5:11; 2 Cor. 6:14).

4. The lazy brother—The sin of laziness in which the brother will not work for a living (2 Thess. 3:6–15).

5. The disobedient brother—Open disobedience to Scripture (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6–14).

6. The heretical brother—Heresy, or deviant doctrine, that is promoted out of self-willed divisiveness (Titus 3:10).

What about when we find ourselves in local church bodies, or denominations, that have accrued serious errors?

Do we reform from within, or without?

This is the great question! For the person who is fully persuaded of the doctrine of separation (to include secondary separation, both ecclesiastical and personal) and its application in that situation, it becomes a question addressed succinctly enough in Romans 6:1 KJV.

Dr. Peter Masters writes in Steps for Guidance on Page 117-118:

When loyalty is wrong toward sound churches

Are there any circumstances in which believers ought to leave doctrinally sound churches? Sadly, there are church failings which are so serious that Christians have a duty to withdraw if the situation cannot be corrected. Even though a church may wholeheartedly believe the fundamental doctrines of the Bible, it may fall into such sin that it is no longer fit or qualified to function as a church and no longer entitled to the loyalty of its members. We see this in the Book of Revelation where the church at Ephesus was told that if it did not repent of its sin it would have its 'candlestick' or 'lamp-stand' (its status as a true church) taken away. Here are three areas of church misconduct which involve such serious disobedience to God that dedicated Christians must withdraw - if the church refuses to address the situation:

1. First, if a church refuses to exercise discipline when serious offences are committed by members, then we have a duty to protest, and if the church refuses to obey God's Word, to leave it. 'Have no fellowship,' says the Lord through Paul, 'with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them' (Ephesians 5.11). The New Testament insists that the purity of the church is taken seriously, and 1 Corinthians 5 shows the necessity of this.

2. Secondly, if a church shows no inclination to obey the great commission and engage in Gospel work, and nothing can be done to stir it up to obedience, believers may well have a duty to leave that church. A local church must proclaim the Gospel. If this primary function is ignored, then the church forfeits the loyalty of true-hearted members. How can they be expected to waste their lives in lazy, heartless or disobedient churches? Why should they be rendered fruitless because their church is not interested in the Saviour's highest work?

3. Thirdly, if a church ignores the standards of God's Word by allowing the use of worldly and carnal styles of worship and evangelism, then the true believers are bound to experience a great crisis of conscience. How can they cleave to a church which corrupts holy things and makes its members participate in ungodly worship contrary to James 4.4- 'Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.' Loyalty to the Lord and his commands in such areas certainly comes before loyalty to the local church.

All three examples mentioned here cancel out the duty of loyalty to a church, regardless of the fact that it may be sound in basic doctrine.

Where such problems do not exist, however, we must believe that God calls us to a church, and commands us to be loyal to it. We should regard ourselves as permanent limbs or parts of that body until he moves us, and have a readiness to be utterly faithful to any sound and active fellowship to which God shall call and 'post' us. The Christian life is not a life of selfish individualism, but a life to be spent as a fellow labourer and fellow soldier in that unit of believers where God intends us to be.

I hope this is a helpful first stab at what may prove to be a lengthy (and hopefully edifying) discussion!

 

[Deleted member 13126]

@MyCrows

I'd also be remiss not to include this excerpt on ecclesiastical and personal separation from the FPCNA's Separated Unto the Gospel:

Ecclesiastical Separation

The matter of fellowship is a very important one for all Bible believing Christians. There are kinds of fellowship that call
forth the condemnation of the Lord (James 4:4; Judg. 2:2, 3). Therefore, in all our fellowship we must be careful to safeguard
our fellowship with Christ. The enjoyment of that fellowship is clearly tied by the Word of God to separation from spiritual
wickedness and error (2 Cor. 6:17-18).

Need for Separation

For years it was the practice of evangelical Christians to remain in denominations that were mostly nonevangelical, even liberal or Anglo-Catholic. They gave expression to their evangelicalism mostly through inter-denominational societies and movements. They felt they could distance themselves from the rationalism or Romanism prevalent in their denominations without actually separating from them. With the formation of the World Council of Churches, it became very much more difficult for Christians to justify this position, because by virtue of their membership in the major denominations they were part of the movement to create a one-world church under the leadership of the pope. The World Council of Churches, with no little help from Dr. Billy Graham, soon involved Evangelicals in its operation, with a consequent compromise of the faith they professed to uphold. Modern evangelicals in the ecumenical movement sound more and more like liberals, often questioning or denying parts of Scripture history and doctrine and involving themselves in the effort to produce union with Rome. Thus ecumenism is a major reason for separation. It is not the only reason. Whether or not a church is in the World (or National) Council of Churches, if it denies the fundamentals of the faith, it should not be kept in the fellowship of God’s people.

The Duty of Separation

“Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3). We are instructed to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11). To a Christian, Liberalism, Modernism, Romanism, and World Council of Churches ecumenism are undoubtedly “works of darkness.” The duty of separation is plain. Paul teaches this duty again in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18. John speaks of it in 2 John 10-11.

Christ the Focus of Separation

Separation is no mere negative reaction. It is thoroughly positive, because it is basically separation unto Christ. “Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach” (Heb. 13:13). Fellowship in any organization that denies Christ, repudiates His Word, or departs from His finished work of atonement and the gospel of justification through faith without works is a fellowship that leads away from Christ. Our fellowship with Him demands our separation from apostasy and fundamental error.

Separation, Not Isolation

Our separation should not blind us to the duty of Christians to express their love one for another and their spiritual unity in Christ. The Free Presbyterian Church therefore seeks to stand with faithful men and churches around the world, even when they do not endorse all our positions on matters that, though important to us, are not fundamental to the gospel. Whitefield was a Calvinist, Wesley an Arminian. Yet Whitefield strove hard to ensure that they stood firmly together in the work of the gospel. Spurgeon endorsed and promoted Moody, much to the chagrin of some who thought that Moody, a confessed Calvinist, was not Calvinistic enough. We seek to express the fundamental oneness of God’s people in any way we can without compromising the fundamentals of the faith. We are biblical separatists, not isolationists.

Personal Separation

Christians are to “walk in the light, as he [God] is in the light” (1 John 1:7). Holiness is to be the hallmark of their lives (Titus 2:12; 1 Pet. 1:16). The plain admonition of Scripture is, “Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof” (Rom. 13:14). We are so to walk that we “grieve not the holy Spirit of God” (Eph. 4:30).

Separation unto God is the essence of personal holiness. There can be no real holiness without a forsaking of sin. “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 John 2:15). Thus Christian holiness goes much deeper than merely doing some things and refraining from doing other things. It does include actions, but it goes all the way down to the love of the heart.

Sin is What the Bible Says It Is

Obviously all that the Bible identifies as sin is sin and must not only be forsaken by God’s people but judged by the church. Church discipline on sin is an essential function of every true church. While elders must not become spiritual tyrants, they are to “watch for (the) souls” of the people under their care “as they that must give account” to the Lord (Heb. 13:17). In exercising that discipline we will wholeheartedly accept the biblical definitions and descriptions of sin. There are those who want to break free from “the tyranny of Bible texts,” as they put it. According to these people, while Bible texts openly condemn homosexuality, for example, there is nothing inherently sinful or unchristian in the practice. One major U.S. denomination’s Special Committee calls homosexual love “justice love.” It includes many other practices that the Bible terms immorality in that description and refuses to condemn them if “there is genuine equality and mutual respect” in them because Christianity’s overriding themes are justice and love. We reject this flagrant abuse of Scripture. We repudiate modern humanistic psychology’s anti-Christian notions and enthrone the Word of God as our final arbiter in judging sin.

Conformity to Christ

Holiness is likeness to the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul described it as Christ being formed in us (Gal. 4:19). When God predestinated His people, it was that they should be “conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom. 8:29). He commands us to have the mind of Christ (Phil. 2:5) and to live with Him as our example (1 Pet. 2:21). This means that what to a carnal man appears to be deprivation—“Christians have to give up so much!”—to a Christian is essential to real happiness. A true Christian cannot rest happily in known sin. We believe the old Puritan dictum that a man must first be made holy before he can be made happy.

Personal Standards of Members

The only written standards that are required of members of the Free Presbyterian Church’s General Presbytery in matters not directly commanded or prohibited in Scripture are voluntary abstinence from alcohol, sensual dancing, gambling, and “the pleasure crazes of the world.” Obviously this requirement is not intended as an exhaustive list of dos and don’ts. For example, there is no mention of using tobacco or narcotic drugs. In fact, the drug problem had not arisen when the Presbytery addressed the matter of personal standards. Also, there are things such as women’s headcovering in public worship that are the constant belief and practice in every Free Presbyterian Church that are not mentioned for the simple reason that at the time the Presbytery statements were drawn up no body of Christians had the slightest doubt of their necessity. Our Presbytery has not sought constantly to update a list of commands and prohibitions because for the most part our members spontaneously adopt a course of personal separation. Furthermore, the elders of each local church have the primary task under God of upholding what
they know to be the historic position of the denomination. The broad reference to “the pleasure crazes of the world” is a reminder that our elders are to keep a constant watch that the spirit of worldliness does not come in to destroy our fellowship with the Lord and our usefulness in His service.

Why Have Such Standards

Some churches see no reason to have any standards in areas not subject to a specific biblical command or prohibition. One church leader recently wrote that Christians could enjoy in moderation whatever the Bible did not forbid, including drinking, dancing, and playing cards (and he was not referring to games like Uno). By the same logic they should be able to enjoy marijuana, especially in places where it has been cleared by the government for legal use. We do not hold this
view. We believe there are guiding truths in God’s Word that not only authorize the kind of standards we have adopted, but necessitate them.

First, a church just as much as an individual Christian has the duty to do all that is necessary to guard its testimony so that it can most effectively witness for Christ in the situation in which He has placed it. “Let not then your good be evil spoken of” (Rom. 14:16) means just that. Even in reference to things that may not in themselves be sinful, we are to judge our participation not by the standard of what is our personal right, but what will best safeguard our testimony.

Second, every good church has exercised the right to take the steps it has considered necessary to protect its testimony and advance the cause of Christ, even where it had no explicit biblical command. Thus Presbyterians historically “fenced the table” at communion and imposed the use of communion tokens. They also demanded that every elder and minister subscribe to The Westminster Confession of Faith. Though no such demands are made in Scripture, they were perfectly biblical in establishing these standards. The overall principles of holiness among communicants and the oversight of the congregation by elders true to the Word of God are clearly scriptural, and these principles were best served by the standards they adopted. We believe that the broad standards laid down by our Presbytery are equally right and biblical.

Gambling and Dancing

Gambling is the expression of covetousness. It is a violation of the clear principle of Scripture that financial gain should come from honest labor or legitimate investment (2 Thess. 3:10; Matt. 25:27), or by inheritance. Dancing in the modern context is openly sensual. By definition it depends on an appeal to sensuality, and we are expressly commanded not to walk after the flesh, but to abstain from fleshly lusts (Rom. 8:13; 1 Pet. 2:11).

Source: https://fpcna.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/SUG_2008.pdf

 

[RamistThomist]

Joke's on them. I don't even have friends.

(This wasn't an entirely facetious post)

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Joke's on them. I don't even have friends.

(This wasn't an entirely facetious post)

For what it's worth, I don't have many either.

 

[MChase]

As a former Southern Baptist who grew up in a completely alcohol free home that believed drinking was sinful, I cannot for the life of me understand the prohibition against alcohol.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

As a former Southern Baptist who grew up in a completely alcohol free home that believed drinking was sinful, I cannot for the life of me understand the prohibition against alcohol.

There are a number of arguments in favor of abstinence.

If you'd like to get a better understanding of these arguments, there's a whole book (or two) on it:

Should Christians Drink? The Case for Total Abstinence by Dr. Peter Masters (Longer, Out of Print)
Should Christians Drink? The Bible Case for Abstinence by Dr. Peter Masters (Shorter, In Print)

The FPCNA's Separated Unto the Gospel also has a section on Abstinence on Page 37, available for free here:

https://fpcna.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/SUG_2008.pdf

 

[MChase]

There are a number of arguments in favor of abstinence.

If you'd like to get a better understanding of these arguments, there's a whole book (or two) on it:

Should Christians Drink? The Case for Total Abstinence by Dr. Peter Masters (Longer, Out of Print)
Should Christians Drink? The Bible Case for Abstinence by Dr. Peter Masters (Shorter, In Print)

The FPCNA's Separated Unto the Gospel also has a section on Abstinence on Page 37, available for free here:

https://fpcna.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/SUG_2008.pdf

If someone is personally convinced not to drink alcohol (outside of the Lord’s Table), I have no problem with that. However, it is unthinkable to make such an issue a term of communion.

 

[alexanderjames]

How are we defining “fundamentalist”?

 

[Deleted member 13126]

If someone is personally convinced not to drink alcohol (outside of the Lord’s Table), I have no problem with that. However, it is unthinkable to make such an issue a term of communion.

What shall we say to my very good friend and brother in the Lord who is a former alcoholic? Alcohol is a stumbling block to him, yet his previous church wanted to go out and drink on the Lord's Day, have Bible Studies in pubs and so on. Should he have stayed, or should they have stopped? What saith the Scriptures?

 

[ZackF]

What shall we say to my very good friend and brother in the Lord who is a former alcoholic? Alcohol is a stumbling block to him, yet his previous church wanted to go out and drink on the Lord's Day, have Bible Studies in pubs and so on. Should he have stayed, or should they have stopped? What saith the Scriptures?

Most here will contest going on the Lord’s Day before alcohol is brought up.

If it were a Monday evening study then folks could give your friend a ride to avoid any temptation to drink as they would be in his company before, during and after the study. Many former drinkers enjoy their tea and soda while others partake.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Most here will contest going on the Lord’s Day before alcohol is brought up.

If it were a Monday evening study then folks could give your friend a ride to avoid any temptation to drink as they would be in his company before, during and after the study. Many former drinkers enjoy their tea and soda while others partake.

But what saith the Scriptures? Paul took food off of his plate, friend. He no doubt would have kept his cup empty on some occasions. Will you? Is your right to liberty worth exercising if it causes a brother to stumble? What if it weakens your testimony? What if it gives the world occasion to say 'Aha, aha'? Is it a fair trade in the name of liberty?

You and I were bought with a price and are not to fulfill the lusts of the flesh. Can we really say it is the Spirit that lusts for alcohol? Is that what we ought to be filled with?

Can you, with the Apostle Paul, say "Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is offended, and I burn not?" (2 Corinthians 11:29 KJV)

 

[Logan]

But what saith the Scriptures? Paul took food off of his plate, friend. He no doubt would have kept his cup empty on some occasions. Will you? Is your right to liberty worth exercising if it causes a brother to stumble?

No, but how I behave as an individual in the presence of weaker brothers does not demand a stance the entire church should adopt as a requirement for membership.

No member to use alcohol because someone might be offended or cause to stumble by alcohol (I don't drink personally, by the way). But why stop there? Aren't there many other things that could cause a weaker brother to stumble? So why not officially adopt all of those? Can't eat meat (or can't eat vegetables) or can't wear certain types of clothing or can't listen to any music etc.

We live in understanding with the weaker brother but we don't order the church around him.

 

[ZackF]

But what saith the Scriptures? Paul took food off of his plate, friend. He no doubt would have kept his cup empty on some occasions. Will you? Is your right to liberty worth exercising if it causes a brother to stumble? What if it weakens your testimony? What if it gives the world occasion to say 'Aha, aha'? Is it a fair trade in the name of liberty?

You and I were bought with a price and are not to fulfill the lusts of the flesh. Can we really say it is the Spirit that lusts for alcohol? Is that what we ought to be filled with?

Can you, with the Apostle Paul, say "Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is offended, and I burn not?" (2 Corinthians 11:29 KJV)

Your second paragraph is inflammatory. Alcohol consumption isn't prohibited and many argue that it is commanded. The moderators can make the call on that.

People are free in Christ to help the weaker brother like provide transportation, be a person to listen to, and understand others will have different patterns of sin and temptation than other brothers and sisters. This freedom may extended to partaking or abstaining depending on how one is led.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Your second paragraph is inflammatory. Alcohol consumption isn't prohibited and many argue that it is commanded. The moderators can make the call on that.

People are free in Christ to help the weaker brother like provide transportation, be a person to listen to, and understand others will have different patterns of sin and temptation than other brothers and sisters. This freedom may extended to partaking or abstaining depending on how one is led.

My second paragraph isn't meant to be inflammatory. It simply draws on Ephesians 5:18. I think it's an important point and asks an important question. Let the record show that I didn't set out to discuss alcohol, nor is that the purpose of this thread.

But I will say that it is curious that you're a Presbyterian, and the justification for such a form of government is in part derived from Acts 15. This council met to discuss a matter of great importance: stumbling blocks.

So I ask you again. Can you, with the Apostle Paul, say "Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is offended, and I burn not?" (2 Corinthians 11:29 KJV)

 

[ZackF]

My second paragraph isn't meant to be inflammatory. It simply draws on Ephesians 5:18. I think it's an important point and asks an important question. Let the record show that I didn't set out to discuss alcohol, nor is that the purpose of this thread.

But I will say that it is curious that you're a Presbyterian, and the justification for such a form of government is in part derived from Acts 15. This council met to discuss a matter of great importance: stumbling blocks.

So I ask you again. Can you, with the Apostle Paul, say "Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is offended, and I burn not?" (2 Corinthians 11:29 KJV)

I can repeat any verse you put before me including 1Timothy 5:23 but it does not make an argument for compelled abstinence.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

I can repeat any verse you put before me including 1Timothy 5:23 but it does not make an argument for compelled abstinence.

No one here is advocating against the medicinal use of alcohol, which is what 1 Timothy 5:23 has in view. Your conscience should not be bound in the medicinal use of alcohol any more than it should the balm of Gilead. But if you're content to let brothers stumble, that's between you and the Lord. May He be gracious to you and make His face to shine upon you, friend.

 

[ZackF]

No one here is advocating against the medicinal use of alcohol, which is what 1 Timothy 5:23 has in view. Your conscience should not be bound in the medicinal use of alcohol any more than it should the balm of Gilead. But if you're content to let brothers stumble, that's between you and the Lord. May He be gracious to you and make His face to shine upon you, friend.

Seriously man, did Jesus turn water into “medicine” at Cana?

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Seriously man, did Jesus turn water into “medicine” at Cana?

Not at all. There's some debate as to whether it was grape juice or something that was very weakly fermented. None of this has to do with the question you continue to dodge. If you're content to let people stumble, just say that. No need to mince words, friend.

Alcohol today and alcohol back then are worlds apart. Everyone knows that. Now we've got Bacardi 151, scantily clad ladies at venues to promote the products, a whole nation practically addicted to alcohol, an untold number of deaths and injuries from it, broken homes, homelessness, etc. But go ahead and hold onto the beer. Honestly, I think you and I will be ashamed of what we did in this life in the name of liberty that caused others to stumble. I don't think it will be worth it in the slightest.

If you want to consider the opposing view, there are some books I recommended above. Something tells me you have your mind made up and won't be looking into the matter further, so why continue this discussion? What will it profit? This thread was created specifically because the last one was brought off topic. Shall we derail this one as well?

 

[Deleted member 13126]

How are we defining “fundamentalist”?

This is a fair question, and although it isn't chiefly related to the original post, I didn't want to ignore it. There are about eight or so definitions for the word that I could find. I think the first five are all appropriate in this context, with 1 and 5 being the most broad:



I believe fundamentalism might be defined a bit differently in England. One term you might be more familiar with there is 'Old Evangelical'.

 

[ZackF]

If I can, I will post more tonight after work if the thread still open.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Alcohol today and alcohol back then are worlds apart. Everyone knows that. Now we've got Bacardi 151, scantily clad ladies at venues to promote the products, a whole nation practically addicted to alcohol, an untold number of deaths and injuries from it, broken homes, homelessness, etc. But go ahead and hold onto the beer. Honestly, I think you and I will be ashamed of what we did in this life in the name of liberty that caused others to stumble. I don't think it will be worth it in the slightest.

Noah abused fermented beverages long before Bacardi and long before Christ turned water into "good wine" in John 2 (which would eliminate the new wine or watered down wine theories) for a group of people getting drunk at a wedding (whatever your definition of "drunk" is, that is the Greek expression used in John 2.10), As Chrysostom wrote: "Let there be no drunkenness; for wine is the work of God, but drunkenness is the work of the devil. Wine makes not drunkenness; but intemperance produces it. Do not accuse that which is the workmanship of God, but accuse the madness of a fellow mortal."

What shall we say to my very good friend and brother in the Lord who is a former alcoholic? Alcohol is a stumbling block to him,

Is Christ's redemptive work ever insufficient? If the glutton can be renewed, the adulterer reformed, and the murderer rehabilitated by the renewal of their minds by Christ, surely the abuser of alcohol can be, too. Using the world's word "alcoholic" makes it seem like alcohol abuse is an incurable disease. That is an idea to be separated from the Christian mind.

Why alcohol abstainance is the shibboleth of the American Christian fundamentalism I grew up in still baffles me.

 

[Northern Crofter]

To what degree are we called to separation

To the degree Christ separated Himself.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Why alcohol abstainance is the shibboleth of the American Christian fundamentalism I grew up in still baffles me.

It needn't, Sir. I'd commend this short booklet to you, as it's an abridged version of the longer, out of print book and is $3. It may give you the perspective you're looking for.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

To the degree Christ separated Himself.

I marvel at this declaration, particularly in light of our peccability and the Lord Jesus Christ's impeccability. Are we to go about our daily lives as though we're the Son of God? Are not many books preserved for us in the canon of Holy Scripture that outline how we live our lives? Are the rules for the bride really the same as the rules for the Groom? Are the sheep really to act as though they are the Shepherd?

If you think so, then there's a wonderful case for abstinence from alcohol to be found in Matthew 26:29 KJV.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Another point against the "new wine" theory is that the Scripture teaches "new wine" was also intoxicating.
"Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day."
Peter clearly understood "full of new wine" to be a reference to drunkenness. And if there was any doubt, he doesn't respond "silly jews, new wine doesn't cause drunkenness," but "it is only 9am."
And Isaiah 24 connects "new wine" with revelry: "The new wine mourneth, the vine languisheth, all the merryhearted do sigh. The mirth of tabrets ceaseth, the noise of them that rejoice endeth, the joy of the harp ceaseth. They shall not drink wine with a song; strong drink shall be bitter to them that drink it."
Joel 1 associates new wine with drunkards: "Awake, ye drunkards, and weep; and howl, all ye drinkers of wine, because of the new wine; for it is cut off from your mouth."
So even if they were drinking "new wine" (which is implausible in most instances, since new wine is only available in the harvest season), that new wine still apparently has a substantial portion of alcohol.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Another point against the "new wine" theory is that the Scripture teaches "new wine" was also intoxicating.
"Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day."
Peter clearly understood "full of new wine" to be a reference to drunkenness. And if there was any doubt, he doesn't respond "silly jews, new wine doesn't cause drunkenness," but "it is only 9am."
And Isaiah 24 connects "new wine" with revelry: "The new wine mourneth, the vine languisheth, all the merryhearted do sigh. The mirth of tabrets ceaseth, the noise of them that rejoice endeth, the joy of the harp ceaseth. They shall not drink wine with a song; strong drink shall be bitter to them that drink it."
Joel 1 associates new wine with drunkards: "Awake, ye drunkards, and weep; and howl, all ye drinkers of wine, because of the new wine; for it is cut off from your mouth."
So even if they were drinking "new wine" (which is implausible in most instances, since new wine is only available in the harvest season), that new wine still apparently has a substantial portion of alcohol.

Yes, many folks suspect it is below 10% but it could obviously still be consumed to excess, to your point and the point that others here have made. There's a camp of folks who might identify as fundamentalists that would allege that alcohol and/or consumption of alcohol is inherently sinful. I'm not in that camp.